The thing that separates a government from any other civic or social organization is that governments may legally Initiate the use of force. Only government has this power, which Is called the police power. And politics Is nothing more than deciding how this power should be used. That’s why, when Chairman Mao Sedona said, “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” he was not philosophizing or speaking in abstract. He was stating a basic axiom. Bear that in mind. Any time you elect a legislator, mayor, or other government official, you are hiring them to hold and use a gun on the people, including yourself.
They may not do so directly, but anyone with the power to pass laws or write regulations has the power to decide when the police should come after you. And “you are disobeying a law” Is always a reason enough. Government Is the same thing, only in groups. The point of having a government is to organize force for the defense of a group or community (be it a neighborhood, a town, a city, a state, or a nation). And the government is us. So at what point does it become justice for the government to do by force that which it is unjust for us to do by force?
And they do not care whether it is an autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, a spot, or a republic except for those who want to use the police power to compel others to do their will. If we are going to have a Just society, we must limit government to its core functions: protection of life, protection of liberty, protection of property, punishing those who transgress those rights, and gaining restitution from them for their victims. First of all, usually only the government is expected to provide some urban infrastructure, fundamental services, basic calamitousness like electricity, bore holes, hospitals, good roads etc.
People pay the tax to bring the government come into existence and maintain its operation. Therefore, they deserve to get all services which are provided by the government. Authorities could require the inhabitants to Join the army when the nation’s interest is seriously threatened, for example, in order to protect its country. Politicians could also send troops to protect people when emergency situations occur: tsunami, floods, and forest fires, to name but a few. However, it is more likely that the government should only pay attention to some services and let the citizens take part in developing the country.
To begin with, it is generally believed that it would be a waste of money if the government had to engage a wide range of services. A lot of people would be employed in order to operate these businesses, meaning that people would have to pay more and more taxes. Furthermore, it is often claimed that the quality of services which are provided by democracies is not as high as expected. As a consequence of this, it would be wise to encourage private companies to Join the market and provide some services which do not relate to national security such as entertainment, arts and so on.
Secondlyџoverspent as rule-maker or law-maker and umpire. The need for government in these respects arises because absolute freedom is impossible. However attractive anarchy may be as a philosophy, it is not feasible in a world of imperfect men. Men’s freedoms can conflict, and when they do, one man’s freedom must be limited to preserve another’s as a Supreme Court Justice once put it, “My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin. “let is important to distinguish the day-to-day activities of people from the general customary and legal framework within which these take place.
The day-to-day activities are like the actions of the participants in a game when they are playing it; the framework, like the rules of the game they play. And Just as a good game requires acceptance by the players both of the rules and of the umpire to interpret and enforce them, so a good society requires that its members agree on the general conditions that will govern relations among them, on some means of arbitrating different interpretations of these conditions, and on some device for enforcing compliance with the generally accepted rules.
In both games and society also, no set of rules can prevail unless most participants most of the time conform to them without external sanctions; unless that is, there is a broad underlying social consensus. But we cannot rely on custom or on this consensus alone to interpret and to enforce the rules; we need an umpire. These then are the basic roles of government in a free society: to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who would otherwise not play the game.
The major problem in deciding the freedoms of different individuals. In some cases, the answer is easy. There is little difficulty in attaining near unanimity to the proposition that one man’s freedom to ruder his neighbor must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the other man to live. In other cases, the answer is difficult. In the economic area, a major problem arises in respect of the conflict between freedom to combine and freedom to compete. What meaning is to be attributed to “free” as modifying “enterprise”?
In the United States, “free” has been understood to mean that anyone is free to set up an enterprise, which means that existing enterprises are not free to keep out competitors except by selling a better product at the same price or the same product at a lower price. In the continental tradition, on the other hand, the meaning has generally been that enterprises are free to do what they want, including the fixing of prices, division of markets, and the adoption of other techniques to keep out potential competitors.
Perhaps the most difficult specific problem in this area arises with respect to combinations among laborers, where the problem of freedom to combine and freedom to compete is particularly acute. The role of government is to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property, from those who would violate them, and to punish those who do so by making them pay us restitution. When a government limits itself to this, people are pleased with it, to the very limited extent that they have to think about it at all.
And they do not care whether it is an autocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, a despot, or a republic, except for those who want to use the police power to compel others to do their will. Thirdly, the relevance of government in the development of a society cannot be over-emphasized as it is very important particularly in the economy. Apart from the fact that the government regulate all the economic activities in the country, they are also in charge of instructing the central bank which is the apex bank in any country when to mint money and when to regulate the amount of money in circulation by their control activities.
Thus, doing this they are making the economy grow which is one of the most important aims of the government of any country whether developed countries or developing countries. Also, Government responsibility for the monetary system has long been recognized. It is explicitly provided for in the constitutional provision which gives Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin. There is probably no other area of economic activity with respect to which government action has been so uniformly accepted.
This habitual and by now almost unthinking acceptance of governmental responsibility makes thorough understanding of the grounds for such responsibility all the more necessary, since it enhances the danger that the scope of government will spread from activities that are, to those that are not, appropriate in a free society, from providing a monetary framework to determining the allocation of resources among individuals.
Therefore,the organization of economic activity through voluntary exchange presumes that we have provided, through government, for the maintenance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation and enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework.
Another important relevance of government in security it gives to children, the less privileged (action through government on paternalistic ground)as embedded in the constitution. Without these securities it will be difficult for any society to develop. We have seen cases of child abuse through rapes, molestations etc. They attain a level of freedom that makes it difficult for their rights to be traumatized because of they are protected “sort off’ and it is backed up n the laws of the society or in the constitution.
All these are the essential roles government do to develop their respective societies. We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children. The necessity of drawing a line between responsible Individuals and others is inescapable, yet it means that there is an essential ambiguity in our ultimate objective of freedom. Paternalism is inescapable for those “homo we designate as not responsible. The clearest case, perhaps, is that of madmen.
We are willing neither to permit them freedom nor to shoot them. It would be nice if we could rely on voluntary activities of individuals to house and care for the madmen. But I think we cannot rule out the possibility that such charitable activities Nil be inadequate, if only because of the neighborhood effect involved in the fact that I benefit if another man contributes to the care of the insane. For this reason, we may be willing to arrange for their care through government. Lilied offer a more difficult case. The ultimate operative unit in our society is the family, not the individual. Yet the acceptance of the family as the unit rests in considerable part on expediency rather than principle. We believe that parents are generally best able to protect their children and to provide for their development into responsible Individuals for whom freedom is appropriate. But we do not believe in the freedom of parents to do what they will with other people.
The children are responsible individuals in embryo, and a believer in freedom believes in protecting their ultimate rights. There is no avoiding the need for some measure of paternalism. As A. V Dicey rote in 1914 about an act for the protection of mental defectives, “The Mental Deficiency Act is the first step along a path on which no sane man can decline to enter, but which, if too far pursued, will bring statesmen across difficulties hard to meet without considerable interference with individual liberty.
Lastly, one of the most important relevant government plays in the development of any society is n the educational sector. The government of every society or country make cautious efforts to make sure that the educational sector does not lag behind. Because they believe that children are the leaders of tomorrow, it is known world-wide that they need sound education to build a developed society and to foster growth generally and be up there among the top nations of the world.
The role of government cannot be over emphasized in this aspect because of the role that education particularly plays in the development of the societies, if we were to look at the top nations of the Nor we would see that they have great historical backgrounds, so the government of every society or government know they have a lot of work to do to develop their captives societies by the establishment of primary or elementary, secondary or high schools and above all tertiary institutions like universities.
That is the major reason why a lot of government institutions provide free education for its citizens. Education is a very important tool for governments seeking to maintain the status quo. Also, it is generally accepted that government should control the be so controlled. ) Thomas Jefferson, although opposed to big government in general, Nas in favor of public education: “If the people don’t have enough information to Meld power correctly, don’t take the power from them.
Give them the information! ” His advocacy of public education was probably quite innocent and well-intentioned, but we must remember that Hitler also called for a government monopoly on education In conclusion, it cannot be denied that the government’s role in providing services for the society is very important; however, it would be essential for private groups to take part in providing some quality services.
Politicians should Inspire more and more individuals or groups to take part in developing the country. CONCLUSION. The relevance of government in the development of any society cannot be over emphasized due to the different task they perform which ordinarily cannot be performed by individuals. A government which maintained law and order, provide the basic amenities like building hospitals, schools, bore holes, roads, etc. Fined property rights, served as a means whereby we could modify property rights and other rules of the economic game, adjudicated disputes about the interpretation of the rules, enforced contracts, promoted competition, provided a monetary framework, readily regarded as sufficiently important and which supplemented private charity ND the private family in protecting the irresponsible, whether madman or child Important to Justify the roles of government in the development of societies, such a government would clearly have important functions to perform.
The Role Of The Government On American Society
Government has filled a spot in the American Society that once belonged to the churches. People regularly attended church throughout American history and use the church as a place of instruction, guidance, support, and charity. The government now fills a larger role in American's lives and at the same time church attendance is diminishing. The government is growing at a rapid pace and the expanded social programs have more influence on Americans than the church. America is a nation of immigrants which most fled from large governments (sometime oppressive) and now the American government is poised to grow larger than ever. The ideas behind the growth of government can have noble intentions, but more often than not results in wasted money and harm to the peoples it intends to help, and is replacing the roles churches once filled as a guiding and supportive structure in peoples lives.
Government spending is a highly debated topic as to how much money should be spent and how it should be spent, but the fact remains government spending is rising each year and will become unsustainable in the future without major changes. Government spending is currently around 40% of GDP as compared to 7% at the start of the twentieth century (Chantrill, NP). Government spending has had ebbs and flows that can be traced since the start of the twentieth century, which include two world wars and a great depression. However, from the 1980's through the early 2000's government spending was lower to mid 30% range of GDP (Chantrill, NP). Increase in spending has been seen since the stock market crash of 2008, to the current levels of around 40% of GDP (Chantrill, NP). Various reasons are behind the major increases of government spending, but the 'New Deal', the 'Great Society', stand out as major legislation milestones in past US history. These two programs have set the stage for today's spending on social programs, and put the US on a path that will be hard to slow down. 'You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think could not do before' ' Rahm Emanuel.
The New Deal:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt after he won the presidency in the midst of the great depression instituted the New Deal, 'a series of economic measures designed to alleviate the worst effects of the depression, reinvigorate the economy, and resort the confidence of the American people in their banks and other key institutions' (The New Deal, NP). Major creations of the New Deal included the Works Progress Administration, The Civilian Conservation Corps, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Social Security Act, and several others (The New Deal, NP). 'The 1935 Social Security Act, which let to the establishment of the Social Security Administration and the creation of a national system of old-age pensions and unemployment compensations. Social Security also granted federal financial support to dependent children, the handicapped, and the blind'(The New Deal, NP). These programs brought government to new levels of intervention in peoples lives. It made the government a top employer of the people with the goal of getting people into the workforce. Unemployment was at record levels, 'Over thirteen million people, nearly 25 percent of the workforce, were now unemployed' (The New Deal, NP). 'New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called 'excess profits' taxes all went up' (Powell, NP). The New Deal also reversed prohibition to use the taxes from the sale of alcohol to raise money for the New Deal programs. The New Deal represented a change in America's direction towards new social programs, the programs were implemented in times of crisis, and capitalism was seen as one of the root causes of the crisis.
The Great Society:
The next large legislation for social programs was the Great Society implemented by Lyndon Johnson, with the main focus being the War on Poverty. Johnson instituted the Great Society without a major crisis to help push his legislations. Johnson had the momentum of the sentiment surrounding the assignation of President Kennedy and the enactment of the Civil Rights Act which was something that Kennedy pushed before his death. 'Johnson wanted to use the resources of the federal government to combat poverty, strengthen civil rights, improve public education, revamp urban communities, and protect the country's natural resources. In short, Johnson wanted to ensure a better life for all Americans' (Great Society, NP). Within this Great Society Johnson created Medicare which provides medical care to the elderly, and today is one of the most costly social programs. Johnson's plan was noble in its goal to combat poverty and to build a better nation. The cost of the plan however, was and is enormous and we must as a nation determine what price must be paid to help the poor. The Bible says,'For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always' (Mark 14:7). The poor will never be totally eliminated no matter what cost is spent. We are called on to help the poor, but the question remains, to what extent should the federal government be involved?
Changing Society and Government:
The church has been a fabric of the American society from the founding of the nation. However, society is changing and the church today has a reduced role in America. 'Since the 1970's, the share of those who never attend religious services or attend less than once a year increased by 53 percent, while those who attend several times a year or weekly decreased by 29 and 26 percent, respectively' (Church Attendance, NP). Religion is interwoven in American society in places such as the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer to open congress and the courts, laws with foundations from the 10 commandments and Biblical teachings. But we are now starting to remove the religious aspects from public organizations as much as possible, with the removal of prayer from schools and litigations to remove the 10 commands from courthouses. Church and state should be separated as much as possible, but the fact remains that ones beliefs will influence how one governs.
Moral Hazards of Government that Contradict Teachings of the Church:
The growth of the government has resulted in programs that replace or even undermine the church. Social Security and unemployment insurance created by the New Deal and Medicare created by the Great Society are some examples of the increasing government programs that either knowingly or unknowingly undermines some of the churches teachings. Social security was written at a time when divorce and unmarried women were outside of the norm. In today's society divorce is common place, and it is also common place for single women to live independently and raise children. Social Security as it is written has issues with divorce as it, 'provides both spousal benefits and survivor's benefits to divorced dependent spouses provided they were married to a retiree for at least 10 years' (Hyman, p325). If the dependent spouse remarries they loose the benefits, so naturally a moral hazard could be the discouragement to remarry so the benefits from the government will not be stopped. Social security was not originally intended to discourage people from remarrying but it is a moral hazard that exists. The church definitely advocates for the spouse to remarry and loose the payment from the government, as opposed to living together unmarried. Unemployment insurance was also issued in the New Deal and at a time when unemployment was 25%. At the time unemployment insurance was designed it was a noble idea and a well received form of relief in response to an unusual circumstance. Also it was tax that people would not mind paying as they saw and felt the effects of the great depression and the inability to find work and feed the family. The moral consequences to this were the increased taxes the employer also had to pay resulted in fewer people that could be placed on the payroll. Also a payment of money sent to people for not working can easily be a discouragement from putting forth effort to find a job. The payment of unemployment is lower than most wages one could earn at a job, but to consider you have to do nothing to receive it makes people more likely to receive less money. Also considering all the taxes one has paid for the unemployment insurance in the past, people will want to reap maximum benefits once they use unemployment. The church teaches at if you are able to work then you should work, provided there are jobs available. 'For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat' (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The government provides these assistance programs that are and can be seen as good and noble, but can easily be abused by the people receiving the assistance.
The Great Society came during the 1960s at t time when the country was in the middle of great civil unrest and cultural changes. The main focus of the Great Society was Johnson's war on poverty. 'Johnson sought affordable health care for all, stronger civil rights legislation, more benefits for the poor and the elderly, increased aid to education, economic development, urban renewal, crime prevention, and stronger conservation efforts. To many, Johnson's initiative seemed to be the most sweeping change in federal policy since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's' (Great_Society, NP). Some of the programs within the Great Society can also have moral hazards that also go against the teaching and instructions of the church. The benefits from the programs are targeted at low income people, and the continued assistance can lead the people to stay at a certain income level in order to receive the benefits payments. The programs (such as Medicaid) can be taken away from the mother if she marries and looses her low income status as a result. This moral hazard has an effect of promoting people to stay unmarried in order to receive the maximum amount of government benefits available. The Great Society has great intentions as defined by Johnson, but everyone that participates does not always see the good as originally designed.
Results that Lead to Decline of the Church:
The New Deal and Great Society are two large government initiatives that began to sway the culture of America from the teachings of the churches. These programs take enormous amounts of money and administrators to run and result in the increased taxes on people who work. The church which in the past had dealt with many of the problems (but maybe not all) the government now addresses is experiencing a decline. A decline in attendance and a decline in funding can be seen in the churches today. The decline, one can argue, can be traced to 'the rise of the welfare state, especially during the New Deal and Great Society, assumed much of the social responsibility that was once the province of voluntary associations' (Muhlausen, NP). The churches taught that one should be responsible for ones self and family within society, but now government is a safety net that will take care of anyone in time of trouble or who does not wish to fulfill these responsibilities. Undoubtedly times of trouble have occurred for people, and they have benefited from the government programs in a positive way. However, it is also true that the government programs will provide help to both those people who are in trouble and need as well as people who are not socially responsible. The increase in taxes required by individuals can also be argued has led to the decline in charitable contributions. The increased taxes can take the money away from people that would have been given in charitable contributions or even the taxes can serve as a substitute. 'Charitable donors will treat the taxes they pay to provide government-run welfare services as a substitute for donations' (Muhlhausen, NP).
When one is presented with a choice to be socially responsible and to do the right thing or just do very little with no worry because there is a government safety net, there will always people who choose to do very little. The programs set and run by the government have at their foundations noble and just causes for concern. However it is questionable as to the amount of intrusion they can have in ones life, the amount of funding the programs costs, and the return on American tax payer's investment they provide. Since the creation of large social programs by the federal government a definite decline in the role of the church in American society can be noted. 'This change has real consequences as the government become more responsible for solving social problems and shapes the lives of American's as the church once did' (Messmore, NP). The push from the government is to make a society in which all men are equal. This is impossible as all men are not equal in their gifts, talents, physical appearance, physical abilities, and mental capacities. The Declaration of Independence states that, 'all men are created equal' with the rights of 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' and this does not mean that we should all have the same jobs or the same income or own the same amount of property. The statement means people should have the opportunity at these rights, if the application is made by the individual.
Source: Essay UK - http://www.essay.uk.com/free-essays/history/role-government-american-society.php
Not what you're looking for?
If this essay isn't quite what you're looking for, why not order your own custom History essay, dissertation or piece of coursework that answers your exact question? There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you. Each of us is qualified to a high level in our area of expertise, and we can write you a fully researched, fully referenced complete original answer to your essay question. Just complete our simple order form and you could have your customised History work in your email box, in as little as 3 hours.